BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two interviews on Morning Report, which explored the propriety of funding for a campaign to encourage Māori to register on the Māori electoral roll, breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complainant said the interviews with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) which funded the campaign, and with Hon Shane Jones, who was asked to comment on the issue, displayed ‘anti-Māori bias’. Noting the broadcast incorrectly stated WOCA was a government agency, the complainant also said listeners would be left with an impression there was corruption taking place based on a false assumption. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives about the advertising campaign were presented in the broadcast and in other media within the period of current interest. While WOCA was inaccurately described as a ‘government agency’, the Authority found the error was not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context, noting WOCA administers taxpayer funds, the broadcast did not assert there was impropriety, and Raukawa-Tait responded to the questions and clarified the basis for funding the campaign.

Not upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 25 June 2025 broadcast of Morning Report on RNZ National included an interview with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) about WOCA’s funding of an advertisement encouraging Māori to join the Māori electoral roll. Key extracts were:

Presenter:                The longest ad ever made in New Zealand will soon be aired, encouraging Māori to join the Māori electoral roll. The 30-minute-long ad features Tāme Iti reading the names of the 300,000 people who are currently on the roll, and it's being paid for by government agency Whānau Ora. Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency Merepeka Raukawa-Tait joins us now… so first, can you tell us why there's such a drive here to get Māori to sign up and get them on the Māori roll?

Raukawa-Tait:          Well …  it's no secret that over many, many years, Māori have been very slow to actually take part in the democratic process … right now, there are over 120,000 Māori of voting age who are not on any roll, whether it's a general roll or the Māori roll. So, it's time for people to get off the couch. I must also say that in the last couple of years, we in particular, Whānau Ora, we exist to advance the wellbeing of Māori … we've been inundated with calls, particularly from young people, rangatahi, to say …  ‘how do we get our voice heard?’ And when you get your voice heard, obviously, through the democratic process, engaging in civic affairs and getting yourself on the roll is one way of having your vote recorded. So yes, there's a real information campaign required here…

Presenter:                 But with this campaign … it's being paid for by the government agency, does that sort of cross any lines here in terms of whether it's actually your responsibility to fund these kinds of promotions when it comes to getting Māori on the Māori roll?

Raukawa-Tait:          Well, that's our job, as I said … there are decisions being made right now in Wellington that will impact on Māori whānau into the future. And so, if you are concerned — as we are, obviously, as Whānau Ora — if you’re concerned about the state of Māori right now and what it might be in the next 10, 20 years, then … you must have your voice heard and you must be engaged in the democratic process. So, no ... And the other thing is, of course, prior to the general election, the Electoral Commission also uses funds to try and, again, get people to think about getting on the roll, getting off the couch, and engaging in the democratic process. And so, in the past, that hasn't happened for Māori. We want to ensure it does now.

Presenter:                 But you're not saying go on the general roll, you're saying go on the Māori roll.

Raukawa-Tait:          Yes, go on the Māori roll, absolutely. Well, you see, this year we're celebrating the 50 years of the Māori Electoral Bill, which of course came into existence in 1975. So, then Māori had the option of going on the Māori roll or the general roll … this is what we're saying now. This is an opportunity for people to think about that, to celebrate that, that that's been in existence, but to take the opportunity to get on the Māori roll, particularly for rangatahi, for young people. Young people, I have to say, the majority of young people, I don't know one that is interested in going on the general roll. But it's all very well saying, well, we're not interested in going on the general roll, but then … become concerned about the issues that affect you. So, get involved and get on the Māori roll and get your voice heard through the electoral process.

Presenter:                 But when we look at your role as a government agency, right, is that, you know, to encourage people to vote and to get them on the general roll? So, is there not any kind of breach here of political neutrality because you're saying go on the Māori roll, not just the general?

Raukawa-Tait:          Yes, well, Māori tend to want to go onto the Māori roll because they want their voice heard. If you're going to go on the general roll, what you're doing is you're going into basically the mainstream parties. Now, your Māori issues never come to the fore in the mainstream parties, so this is what I'm saying. This is why it is necessary. Young people will choose. They will choose if they say thank you but no thank you, we'll go on a roll, and it will be the general roll. Now that would be something to see, I can assure you. But I mean, it's up to young people, rangatahi, but they have to do that…

Presenter:                 So Merepeka, can you please tell me then what percentage of Māori, of our Māori population, [are] on the Māori roll at the moment?

Raukawa-Tait:          I can't tell you that actually… in the past, because obviously it's older people that have voted, there were more Māori on the general roll and now we're looking to increase the Māori roll. And you'll increase it through the rangatahi. It's all very well doing hīkoi and marching … but it is the political process that gets your voice heard, and not only your voice heard but where your vote counts. And this is, as I say, there's a whole information and education, I think, that needs to happen now...

Presenter:                 So, if you're running this campaign, I mean, I'm just looking at the figures now. It looks like around 58% of Māori are on the Māori roll and about 42% are on the general roll. So, would these figures not be part of the campaign that you're running?

Raukawa-Tait:          Well, when you're looking at who's on the roll now, they are older people, mostly older people. In the past, Māori have just, they've never seen themselves reflected in the representation that we see in Wellington. I have to say that young Hana Rāwhiti-Clark … her following has exploded, and young people are starting to think, well, you know, if she goes there, she knows what our aspirations are, so what is it that we can do? And that's what they're saying. Have they been left out? They haven't been left out. They have an opportunity now and we're saying take advantage, get yourself on the roll, make a decision …

Presenter:                 Right, but as your roll as Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, Merepeka … shouldn't you have the responsibility, and shouldn't you know who’s on what roll and know these figures?

Raukawa-Tait:          Oh yes, of course I can. Of course we can know the figures. I'm not talking about the figures, I'm talking about the opportunity to advance the wellbeing of Māori. You can look at the figures but you can also look at the thousands of young Māori who will next year be voting for the first time if they get themselves off the couch … it comes down to the 120,000 right now — that's another figure you shouldn't overlook — who are of voting age, who are not even on the roll. So now is the time. We want to celebrate the Māori electoral roll, the commemoration or celebration of the 50-year anniversary of that. And we're … going to social media and to say to young people, this is your time. Don't talk about it. Don't admire Hana from afar. Get in and…

Presenter:                 …How much are you spending on this campaign?  

Raukawa-Tait:          That I'm not at liberty to say at this point in time. We've got some professionals assisting us, but the majority of our information...

Presenter:                 Why not? When will we get those figures? 

Raukawa-Tait:          Well, you can get those figures probably next year when we put up our financials, like everybody else — you know financial report, annual report…

Presenter:                 Any rough idea? Are we talking hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands?...

Raukawa-Tait:          No, that's not the point of issue here. The point of issue is, Whānau Ora exists to advance the wellbeing of Māori. Our young people are saying, how can we get informed? ... our mahi, our work is usually informed by what it is that Māori see as necessary to them. So, this is definitely the time for Māori to, for their voice to be heard and the voice, you can hear their voice through the political process. And they have every right to be engaged in the democratic process. And that's what we're advancing …

[2]  In a subsequent interview with Regional Development Minister, Hon Shane Jones, Jones was asked for comment on WOCA’s funding of the ad campaign:

Presenter:                 And Minister, if I could just get your two cents on another issue. What's your opinion here on Whānau Ora campaign for the Māori electoral roll? Is this a breach of political neutrality?

Jones:                        Well, look the Whānau Ora, sadly, has been tainted by the Māori Party. Whānau Ora goes back to Tariana Turia. Those are the days when the Māori Party was a legitimate, genuine, authentic political movement. And I fear that this type of politicisation just shows that public taxpayer money, historically, has been used for ideological experiments which are going to divide Kiwis against iwis. 

Presenter:                 And … on that subject of the taxpayer funds and the public funds, is it right and is it legal that Whānau Ora can use public funds to campaign for Māori to move on to the Māori roll?

Jones:                        Well, look, I'll leave the legalities to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora. But Kiwis, quite frankly, have had a guts full of how the Māori party and the Whānau Ora have worked hand in glove, quite frankly, to polarise and diminish the spirit of unity and the importance of being in the waka together, making something greater together, and sadly this particular episode shows that Whānau Ora has probably sunk to a very, very low ebb in the event that legally it can be shown that this is a distortion of the kaupapa of Whānau Ora. 

The complaint

[3]  Paul Judge complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

[4]  Regarding the Raukawa-Tait interview, Judge objected to the ‘repeated questioning about appropriate use of government funds to encourage Māori onto the Māori roll’ noting:

• The interview was a ‘display of anti-Māori bias’.
• WOCA’s funding of the advertisement was a ‘normal function of an agency set up to help Māori have a voice in democratic society’.
• The line of questioning was ‘inappropriate’ and ‘goading’, including ‘irrelevant questions about figures she was, according to the interviewer, supposed to know off the top of her head’.
• Casual listeners would be given the impression ‘there was some sort of corruption taking place’ and this was ‘deliberately constructed… and based on false assumptions’.

[5]  Regarding the Jones interview, Judge said:

• A similar line of questioning was put to Shane Jones even though he was being interviewed about regional development.
• Questions put to Jones ‘seemed designed to reinforce the anti-Māori bias shown in the previous interview’.
• It was a ‘media beat up’ more in line with ‘trash radio’.

[6]  Judge said RNZ’s subsequent clarification ‘that Whānau Ora is not a government agency and chair Merepeka Raukawa-Tait stood for Te Pāti Māori in the 2023 general election, bears out my accusations of bias and lack of balance.’  

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘It is not biased or anti-Māori, as part of a news and current affairs interviews on a matter of significant public interest, to robustly (or repeatedly) question an agency’s expenditure of public funds or to examine an organisation’s mandate to campaign for changes to the electoral landscape.’
• Both interviewees are ‘very experienced in political and public life and able media performers’.
• RNZ operates with a clear mandate to serve the public interest which includes holding those in power to account and scrutinising how public funds are spent.
• The responsibility extends to ‘all entities that receive and administer taxpayer money’.
• The fact WOCA is not a government department is a ‘red herring’ because while ‘WOCA is an independent non-governmental organisation, it is contracted by the Crown (via Te Puni Kōkiri) and administers substantial taxpayer funds’.
• Any organisation ‘that receives a significant portion of its funding from the public purse’ is a legitimate subject of media inquiry, ‘particularly when its activities touch upon areas that could be seen as political advocacy or influencing democratic participation’.
• ‘The broadcast did not contain any implication of corruption… The interviewer simply asked politically focussed questions about the use of public funds for a political purpose, a standard and necessary function of public interest journalism.’

Jurisdiction — scope of complaint

[8]  Judge expressly raised the balance standard in his complaint. However, we considered whether it should also be interpreted as raising the accuracy and fairness standards.

[9]  Pursuant to section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider a complaint under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. The High Court has clarified that in certain circumstances:¹

…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps … or cross boundaries between Code standards… but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint, and if a proper consideration of the complaint makes that approach reasonably necessary…

[10]  We consider Judge’s original complaint can be reasonably interpreted as raising the accuracy standard. It suggested a misleading impression of corruption had been created based on false assumptions and challenged the sufficiency of RNZ’s subsequent online correction. The balance standard concerns the omission of significant perspectives on controversial issues of importance and is less suited to addressing the factual inaccuracy about WOCA’s status or determining the sufficiency of any correction. Therefore, the accuracy standard is necessary to properly consider the complaint.

[11]  The original complaint has elements that could also be considered under the fairness standard, such as references to the ‘goading’ interview approach, and the suggestions of ‘corruption’. However, the original complaint is not focused on protecting Raukawa-Tait’s, or WOCA’s, dignity or reputation, which is the purpose of the fairness standard. It raises issues of ‘anti-Māori bias’ and concern that listeners were given an incorrect impression. These issues can be addressed without the fairness standard, and addressing the complaint under the accuracy standard can also serve to address the reputational concerns.

[12]  For these reasons we do not consider it necessary to consider the fairness standard but have addressed the balance and accuracy standards below.

The standards

[13]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.² The standard states:³

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[14]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁴ The standard states:⁵

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[15]  We have listened to the two interviews and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[16]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁶

Balance

[17]  The balance standard only applies to broadcasts which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. We consider the broadcast did discuss a controversial issue of public importance, ie whether WOCA had improperly or illegally used public funds to pay for the ad encouraging Māori to join the Māori roll. The balance standard therefore applies.

[18]  The next question for us is whether RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints on this issue. For the reasons below, we are satisfied it did.

Significant viewpoints were presented in the broadcast

[19]  WOCA’s perspective on the propriety of the ad campaign was presented in detail through the Raukawa-Tait interview. Raukawa-Tait spoke for approximately six minutes of the 7.43 minute broadcast, allowing her ample opportunity to explain WOCA’s mandate and rationale for funding the ad campaign. She:

a)  explained WOCA exists ‘to advance the wellbeing of Māori’, and asserted it was ‘our job’ to fund such promotions, noting ‘concerns about the state of Māori’ and the need for Māori to be engaged in the democratic process to have their voices heard

b)  explained the rationale for the campaign as an initiative to encourage Māori participation in the democratic process:

i)  ‘there are over 120,000 Māori of voting age who are not on any roll’

ii)  ‘we’ve been inundated with calls, particularly from young people, rangatahi, to say … how do we get our voice heard?’  

c)  tied the campaign’s benefits back to WOCA’s objectives including through reference to wellbeing, rangatahi engagement and celebrating 50 years of the Māori electoral option

d)  promoted the Māori roll as the best avenue for Māori voices to be heard: ‘Yes go on the Māori roll, absolutely … Māori issues never come to the fore in mainstream parties’

e)  answered challenges directly, eg when pressed on campaign spending, she redirected to purpose — ‘No, that’s not the point of issue here. The point of issue is, Whānau Ora exists to advance the wellbeing of Māori’ — emphasising WOCA’s kaupapa

f)  framed the campaign as information/education rather than partisanship: ‘young people are saying, how can we get informed? Get informed, get on the Māori roll’ and ‘there’s a real information campaign required here’

g)  compared the campaign with the Electoral Commission’s use of funds to try to get people thinking about engaging in the democratic process which, in the past ‘hasn’t happened for Māori’.

[20]  While Raukawa-Tait did not correct the presenter’s incorrect description of WOCA as a government agency, which could have been an opportunity to address suggestions of impropriety/use of public funds, she offered perspectives on the merits and justification for WOCA’s allocation of funding to the campaign.

[21]  We have considered whether the fact that her interview was conducted on a false premise, ie that WOCA is a government agency, may have distorted listeners’ impressions of her comments and detracted from the balance her comments provided. However, we consider that issue is best addressed under accuracy.

[22]  The broadcast also offered another perspective on the issue through the subsequent interview with the Minister for Regional Development. Jones acknowledged the propriety of WOCA’s actions had yet to be determined but shared his perspectives about ‘politicisation’ and the use of taxpayer money.

Significant viewpoints available in other media within period of current interest

[23]  The balance standard takes account of New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available from other sources. Reflective of this environment, a broadcast need not present significant viewpoints if the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of them from other media coverage.⁷

[24]  The standard also allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest for the relevant issue.⁸ In this case, we consider the period of current interest extends through to the release, three months later, of the Independent Review into the matter.⁹

[25]  The audience can therefore reasonably be expected to be made aware of significant viewpoints from other coverage:

a)  The intentions and benefits of the ad campaign itself, which support its connection to WOCA’s mandate as described by Raukawa-Tait, were covered in other media.¹⁰

b)  Calls for, and establishment of a review to explore the propriety of the campaign’s funding, were subsequently reported, including by RNZ.¹¹

c)  The results of the review were also subsequently reported,¹² including the:¹³ 

i)  finding WOCA paid for the ad with interest received from investing Whānau Ora funding 

ii)  finding it was ‘at least arguable’ the advertising campaign ‘was within the purposes of the Whānau Ora Outcomes framework which contemplates civic engagement’

iii)  recommendations made to strengthen Te Puni Kōkiri’s oversight, contract and conflict of interest management and performance scrutiny.

Anti-Māori bias

[26]  To the extent Judge alleges ‘anti-Māori bias’ in relation to the interviews, that is not an issue addressed under the balance standard.¹⁴ However, we identified no evidence of such bias in the interview, which explored a matter of significant public interest, ie the appropriate use of public funds. While Jones’s comments were critical, they were directed at the actions of politicians/organisations and perceived misuse of funds, not the Māori people or identity.

[27]  For the reasons above, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[28]  The inaccuracy raised in this complaint is that the broadcast misleadingly suggested corruption was taking place based on false assumptions, ie the assumption WOCA was a ‘government agency’ when it is a private company. Noting RNZ’s subsequent online clarification WOCA is ‘not a government agency’,¹⁵ there is no argument that this description was inaccurate. The key issue is whether this error, together with any consequent impression about ‘corruption’, was materially inaccurate or misleading in the context.

[29]  Guideline 6.2 to the accuracy standard confirms the standard ‘is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole’.

[30]  Our assessment of the error’s materiality is finely balanced in this case. The error was relevant to the key issue explored in the broadcast: whether WOCA was improperly using public funds and engaged in electioneering. A private entity’s obligations with respect to public funds it administers is different from those of a government agency. However, on balance, we have found the error was not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context:  

a)  While WOCA is not a government agency, it administers substantial taxpayer funds under its contract with Te Puni Kōkiri. It is therefore still relevant to explore whether public funds had been inappropriately used for the ad.

b)  As RNZ said, ‘an organisation that receives a significant portion of its funding from the public purse is a legitimate subject of media inquiry’, ‘particularly when its activities touch upon areas that could be seen as political advocacy or influencing democratic participation’.

c)  The suggestion WOCA was a government agency may have strengthened the case for potential ‘impropriety’. However:

i)  The broadcast did not assert there was impropriety, it simply posed questions to explore the point.

ii)  It was clear from Jones’s response to questions that wrongdoing had not been established, ie ‘I’ll leave the legalities to the Minister responsible for Whānau Ora’.

iii)  WOCA’s response to the queries was presented and the Chair was allowed to respond at length to all questions. She clarified the basis for funding the campaign and did not attempt to correct the error.

[31]  In these circumstances, we are not satisfied the error would have materially impacted the audience’s understanding of the broadcast.¹⁶ The key messages likely to be taken away by reasonable audience members were:

a)  WOCA had funded the ad campaign.

b)  Questions were being raised about the propriety of this.

c)  WOCA considered the expenditure consistent with its mandate to advance the wellbeing of Māori, in particular to address the 120,000 Māori who are not on any roll and ensure Māori voices — particularly those of younger Māori — are brought to the democratic process.

[32]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
4 November 2025  

 
Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Judge’s original complaint – 17 July 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 21 July 2025

3  Judge’s referral to the Authority – 15 August 2025

4  Judge’s comments regarding standards – 20 and 21 August 2025

5  RNZ’s response to the referral – 26 August 2025

6  RNZ’s further comments – 25 September 2025

7  Judge’s final comments – 26 September 2025

8  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 29 September 2025

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Limited, CIV-2011-485-1110 at [62]
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Guideline 5.2
⁹ Te Puni Kōkiri Independent Review into alleged inappropriate use of public funds appropriated for Whānau Ora - Te Pou Matakana (3 September 2025)
¹⁰ Te Manu Korihi “Whānau Ora launches NZ’s longest ever ad urging more Māori to join the Māori roll” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 25 June 2025); 1News Reporters “Māori Roll call: Tāme Iti gives shout outs, apologies in longest ad” 1News (online ed, 25 June 2025); and Matthew Tukaki “Campaign launched on the Māori roll option” Waatea News (online ed, 25 June 2025)
¹¹ See Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira “Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka asks for urgent advice after ‘electioneering concerns” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 25 June 2025); Julia Gabel “Tama Potaka seeks review of Māori roll ad featuring Tāme Iti” New Zealand Herald (online ed, 25 June 2025); and “Minister fears public funding used for electioneering” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 26 June 2025)   
¹² See Russell Palmer “Review into Whānau Ora Commissioning funding terms of reference released” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 30 June 2025); Tuwhenuaroa Natanahira “Te Puni Kōkiri says Māori roll ad went too far” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 12 September 2025); Kelly Dennett and Anna Whyte "Te Puni Kōkiri reveals results of review into Whānau Ora spending allegations" The Post (online ed, 12 September 2025); Te Rina Kowhai "Whānau Ora review clears misuse claims, tighter oversight introduced" Te Ao Māori News (online ed, 12 September 2025); and Rachel Moore and Glenn McConnell "Allegations of inappropriate use of Whānau Ora funds 'not upheld’" Stuff (online ed, 12 September 2025)
¹³ Te Puni Kōkiri Independent Review into alleged inappropriate use of public funds appropriated for Whānau Ora - Te Pou Matakana (3 September 2025) at 19
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁵ “NZ First’s Shane Jones criticises advertisement encouraging enrolment on Māori roll” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 25 June 2025)
¹⁶ Guideline 6.2